Guild Wars 2

On another thread there was a discussion about off-map supplies and their place in the WvW strategy. Also in another thread we discussed about the role of towers and other fortifications in WvW and their significance to the battlefield.

I’ve long wanted WvW to be more strategic than it is in its current form. I know it’s a view a lot of players do not share, instead leaning on even quicker and more action-packed WvW. That’s fine, and I’m not here to convert anyone.

This is my idea how I would like to see WvW areas arranged.

Basically the areas would be directly linked (probably not possible to have them seamless with current server tech) to each other in a way that they would together form one giant battleground, with the Stonemist Castle in the center of it.

The Borderlands would be arranged around the EB in a triangle and the keeps would be placed in strategic locations that block (or allow) entrance to the neighboring Borderlands and the EB.

Each world would only have a single waypoint, located at their home Borderland’s Citadel. Keeps and the Castle could still be upgraded with waypoints, making holding them crucial to be able to travel within the giant battleground quickly.

Towers would be placed in naturally defensible locations and would guard the entrance to a supply camp or another strategic resource.

Pros:
+ Much deeper strategy, giving more emphasis on scouting and holding the keeps.
+ Naturally driving the troops to certain areas, allowing large battles more often.

Cons:
- Population caps could be problematic, especially if your realm was confined to their home borderlands.
- Bigger battles mean bigger skill lag.
- Even more emphasis for night crews to take the crucial Keeps with waypoints.

The two first cons could be solved with better server engine, but I’m not sure if developing one (or improving the current one) is really viable for Anet. The last con is an everlasting problem which is difficult to solve without making all realms global and thus hopefully having a more even spread of players around the clock.

Comments? What would you think would be the biggest problems in this approach, and why do you think the current setup is better than this one? If you like this approach, but would want to change something, what would it be?

I think I am missing something about what you are picturing here. So forgive me if this seems a tangent.

One of things that I believe people like about EBG/EB and EoTM is the circular design since it leads to this push towards the center concept and the fact that there is more objectives to fight for and control. Only been on two servers thus far but people tend to gravitate towards EB over the borderlands.

I would be up for two different concepts for the borderlands that I can think of real quick, they are not mutually exclusive:

• Redesign to be more like EB but grant control at reset of the center keep to the homeland for the map.

• Create a way that additional objectives can be constructed in predefined locations in the borderlands that once built add PPT to the side controlling them. These objectives would be destroyed on capture and require a side to rebuild them via supply. Imagine a forward siege base of some sort that could be built outside of Bay. It would add PPT while in existence to the side that built it. In this design the borderlands would have a set number of base points of value but that could be ramped up if fully built up to be close to EB’s points. I think this might attract some of the more defense and build type personalities I have seen in game.

One thing I miss from a previous game was a variation in maps. An older game had players move across a series of maps as they controlled the map, this added more diversity and had a way to keep things fresh longer. Things that make players re-think how they do things to me is a good thing even if people hate change most of the time.

Will check back, good hunting!

TheGrimm.5624:

One of things that I believe people like about EBG/EB and EoTM is the circular design since it leads to this push towards the center concept and the fact that there is more objectives to fight for and control. Only been on two servers thus far but people tend to gravitate towards EB over the borderlands.

My design would transform the whole WvW (with the exception of EotM) into circular design, with EB and the Stonemist castle at the centre and the borderlands directly attached into its “outer rim”.

I’m all for having more of a connection between the borderlands and EB where there currently isn’t much. The immediate downside to this concept is illustrated in your first two cons. These two issues cannot be circumvented except by adding additional maps leading to the current system.

The third con is something that isn’t only a problem overnight, but also during non-prime time on low pop servers. You can flip and entire map (aside from maybe SMC) with 2 players as long as you’re unopposed. The only answer to this is to add more passive defense from NPCs, which will likely never happen. What could be done is to have Lords scale like in EotM and PvE (Champs).
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Lord-Room-Scaling/first#post4575082

By placing a keep at the borders as you describe, if I understand correctly, a player would only be able to move to a map other than their home BL if they controlled the border keep. This is something that while adding a certain level of potential strategy would never fly.

Sagramor.7395:

I’m all for having more of a connection between the borderlands and EB where there currently isn’t much. The immediate downside to this concept is illustrated in your first two cons. These two issues cannot be circumvented except by adding additional maps leading to the current system.

The third con is something that isn’t only a problem overnight, but also during non-prime time on low pop servers. You can flip and entire map (aside from maybe SMC) with 2 players as long as you’re unopposed. The only answer to this is to add more passive defense from NPCs, which will likely never happen. What could be done is to have Lords scale like in EotM and PvE (Champs).
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Lord-Room-Scaling/first#post4575082

By placing a keep at the borders as you describe, if I understand correctly, a player would only be able to move to a map other than their home BL if they controlled the border keep. This is something that while adding a certain level of potential strategy would never fly.

Yes I’m quite aware Anet won’t do this, at least as long as their server tech doesn’t allow more players per map with sufficient performance.

Having a world restricted to their home borderland only (even if they did have three keeps to choose from when planning their “escape”) would be nasty, but if the pop caps were significantly higher they would then obviously pool their resources to one map in order to break through. Maybe the home world could even have a higher pop cap on their home maps than the opposing worlds, so that it would be more difficult to “corner” them for a longer period.

It’s going to be interesting to see what that certain upcoming RvR focused MMO will bring to the table and how their tech will hold up with large amount of players.